Nietzsche's doctrine is literally within lavey’s church of satanism. https://brichert.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/nietzsche-within-lavey%E2%80%99s-satanism/

Let's see what Rudolf "ahriman" Steiner has to say about his colleague Frederick "zarathustra übermensch" Nietzsche.

Steiner believes that Lucifer incarnated into human form first, most heavily influencing human civilization up to and for a few centuries beyond the time of Christ. Eventually Christian teachings became widespread and influential, but there was no clear demarcation from one age to another, as in different places influences from Satan lasted longer before Christian concepts were introduced and took hold. Israel was also influenced by pre-Christian concepts long before Christ, as the Old Testament had been preparing His way since at least the time of Moses. Likewise, Steiner says that secret societies like the Illuminati and Freemasonry have been aiming to achieve an “Age of Reason” for centuries, and this attempt at a New World Order in which Christianity is just for the weak and stupid masses as Frederick Nietzsche wrote in his philosophical book: Antichrist. This also creates a chronological overlap of influence in which materialistic and Ahrimanic principles have been pushed for centuries ahead of Ahriman’s arrival.

Can you see the luciferian agenda? Ahriman means satan in persian btw

https://endtimesand2019.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/worse-than-satan-ahriman-the-antichrist-as-described-by-rudolph-steiner-in-1919-is-due-to-incarnate-into-a-western-leader-in-the-early-21st-century/

This article has compared the theories and social policies of social democrats and other representatives of the left-wing political spectrum in six European countries. Its chief focus has been the question of how we can explain why, in certain countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland, weak social groups were the target of illiberal and negative eugenic policy, especially isolation and sterilization, while in other countries left-wing politicians and theorists were far less radical (positive eugenicists, neo-Lamarckians). To answer the central question posed here, I tested two hypotheses: the first is derived from the work of Zygmunt Bauman, Michel Foucault, and James Scott and emphasizes the desire of the state and the technocrats and professionals associated with that state to crack down on those elements of the population who found themselves unable to cope with social change and unable to assimilate themselves into modern society, and indeed to eliminate them, by, in the most extreme cases, sterilizing or killing them (Nazis). In that view, the political convictions of policymakers are subordinated to a shared ‘‘high modernist’’ ideology. The vision of the future offered by the Myrdals, and to a somewhat lesser extent by the Webbs, was wholly consistent with that. They were enthusiastic advocates of a rational and technocratic ideology designed to solve social problems, without taking much account of the expertise and opinion of the population on whom that policy would be inflicted.

Foucault was probably a fabian society puppet, check their history.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/94158269859ADC577FA74AC0271CF444/S0020859010000209a.pdf/brave_new_world_the_left_social_engineering_and_eugenics_in_twentiethcentury_europe.pdf

Michel Foucault’s theory of disciplinary power with respect to colonies for the mentally ill and juvenile delinquents and eugenics with respect to farm colonies for the mentally disabled. The author examines and critiques Foucault’s various formulations of ‘colonization’ in his key published works, particularly his College of France lectures where he draws important links between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ colonization. Eugenics, the author argues, does not work chronologically nor substantively as the key causal explanation, since most eugenicists eventually reject the colony in favour of sterilization.

https://academic.oup.com/book/8201/chapter-abstract/153743088?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

This dude was a marxist/socialist and pro eugenics btw, this just proves that there's absolutely no difference between soviet socialism and national socialism. Take a look at the past and see how many millions of innocent people really died by the hands of these godless luciferian socialists.

Foucault's definitely part of the left/university brainwashing. They are all obsessed and love him.

As for Crowley...why hide something so deep (astrology) under something so shallow (satanism)?

Seriously dude, Crowley called himself the beast, not because of astrology but because he actually was a luciferian "qabbalist" master illumini that used magick for horrible sex rituals, and he also permanently opened portals to summon evil spirits aka demons, who literally wrote his books for him (while being possessed).

Now, what do all holy manuscripts tell you about the use of white/black magick? Scriptures tells us that any form of magick is strictly forbidden by God our one and only creator.

No.